Read More

The court also disallowed the £4,100 charge for buildings insurance, which the court said should not have been included within the maintenance cost bill.

Floorweald and ABC Estates agreed during the hearing the £2,000 contingency amount for external and building maintenance and the £1,000 contingency fee for flat only costs should be scrapped.

Christine Crowe, a resident of Grantham Apartments who represented herself and the other 13 lease-holders at Civil Court

The tribunal also found the estimated cost for internal re-painting of £10,000 was too much and reduced it by £3,000 to a total of £7,000.

All other maintenance costs were kept the same given the residents could not give alternative suggestions of charge.

Despite this, the report also states that once the service charge year is up, the landlord must provide an account of its actual expenditure during the year and if the actual expenditure is less than the budget they should repay the balance to the leaseholders.

Christine Crowe, who was nominated as the tenant to represent the 13 residents in the tribunal said: “On the whole I was pleased that they clearly could see that we were being overcharged.

“Before the hearing we showed the tribunal members around the apartments so they got to see for themselves what did and did not need doing, and the fact they knocked £27k off the figure shows it was too much,” she added.

Read More

This latest hearing was the second tribunal between the residents and the companies, the first had taken place on May 24, 2017 and had also concluded overall in favour of the tenants who it was decided were being overcharged maintenance fees.

Chairman Mr Orne told Floorweald tenants should not have to pay more than is necessary

Their return to court this year had been prompted by a further rise in maintenance costs as well as a demand for £50,000 to pay for “major works” under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985.

Relating to this matter, they concluded: “The Tribunal finds it very difficult to believe that the works listed in the Schedule will cost £50,000. There is no evidence to support that figure except the opinion of Mr. Hawkins.

“The Company has not obtained a surveyor's report as to whether the plaster repairs are required. It has not obtained a properly costed schedule of works. The Tribunal is not satisfied that £5o,ooo is a reasonable estimate for the cost of the works listed in the Schedule.

“Using its own experience and knowledge, the Tribunal considers that a reasonable estimate for the cost of the works is £3o,ooo and divides that as to £3,ooo for the external work and £7,ooo for the internal works,” they added.

Read More

Ms Crowe and the other tenants are hoping Floorweald and ABC will take the judgements on board, unlike last year when the companies contested the findings.

“Where we go from here depends on their reaction. If they refuse to apply these findings our only option will be to take it to county court,” said Ms Crowe.

The company legal representative Mr Fischer said the residents had "brought it on themselves"

“It’s very hard to stand up for ourselves because it takes a lot of time, effort and money and it seems like the system is weighted against us, so we hope the companies do what’s right.”

Leaseholders of Floorweald Ltd and ABC Estates in other parts of the country, including a development in Faversham in Kent, have taken the companies to Civil Court on similar grounds, with a tribunal finding residents in Faversham had been overcharged by £9,500.

Chairman Judge Orne and tribunal member Mr Ayres had the job of working out if residents of the Kingswood apartments had been charged a reasonable amount for the year from March 25, 2017 to March 24, 2018.

Where they found it was not reasonable they were tasked with calculating what amount was reasonable.

However, the Chairman’s conclusion said the opportunity to contest the charge could be made after the year was up based on whether the company had carried out services and maintenance costing that amount.

Read More

Part of the leaseholder’s argument was that items included under Section 20 repairs, including loose door handles, the replacement of a PVC pipe joint and the weeding of the garden should have been carried out as part of general maintenance.

They claimed the disrepair and dilapidation of the property had come about as a result of the management company not carrying out regular and necessary maintenance.

Lease-holders of the 13 apartments took the companies to Civil Court last year for the first time over the management fee row

In the tribunal’s conclusion, it stated: “It was apparent to the Tribunal from its inspection of the property and from hearing the submissions of both parties that management of the Property in previous years may not have been perfect. Certain works have not been carried out at the appropriate time and certain services may not have been provided to a reasonable standard.”

During the tribunal, the companies’ representative Mr Anthony Fischer who is also a director of Floorweald Limited argued the costs were reasonable and the situation was a result of residents’ refusal to communicate.

After the hearing he said: “The situation is an unfortunate one whereby we offered to mediate and come down to the premises which was refused.

“It has meant the property has deteriorated because the lease holders have not paid their service charges even though they have to under the terms of the lease,” he added.”

Mr Fischer and his colleagues have been contacted for comment regarding the tribunal’s conclusion.